The High Court has refused to overturn a decision denying refugee status and subsidiary protection to an Iraqi applicant who said he feared persecution for criticising the Kurdistan government online.
Mr Justice Barr ruled on 15 January 2021 that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal had given adequate reasons for its decision and had acted rationally on the evidence before it. The court refused the relief sought in the applicant’s judicial review.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as R.F.H., had arrived in Ireland in June 2018. He said he had posted criticism of the Kurdistan government on Facebook from 2012 or 2013. In 2014, security forces known as the Asayish detained and questioned him about the posts. He shut down his public account while in custody.
The judgment records that he later opened a private account accessible to about 100 friends and continued to post criticism. He also liked and shared critical posts by others and argued publicly with government supporters. The court noted that he had not been rearrested, attacked or harmed because of his views during the four years before he left Iraq.
The tribunal refused protection in November 2019, finding there was no reasonable risk that he would face persecution or serious harm if returned. The applicant argued that it had failed to address country information he submitted, including two articles, and had not adequately explained its conclusions. He also said the tribunal had overlooked his public likes and shares.
The respondents argued that the tribunal had considered the evidence and was entitled to rely on the applicant’s continued activity without further adverse attention. They said the two articles were of limited relevance and that the country information generally indicated that journalists, media outlets and political activists faced risks, rather than ordinary individual internet users.
The High Court found that the broad thrust of the country information supported the tribunal’s assessment. It considered the two articles insufficiently relevant to require separate discussion and said the tribunal’s general findings adequately addressed the applicant’s online activity and public criticism. The court also accepted that the tribunal had applied a forward-looking test and could take account of the applicant’s lack of harm before leaving Iraq.
The ruling concerns the lawfulness of the tribunal’s decision on judicial review. The court refused to set it aside; it did not itself grant or determine a new protection application.